Nicole Ari Parker in STREETCAR....

So I finally saw STREETCAR tonight, and I was pleasantly surprised by Parker's performance. She gave a very moving and authentic performance. I think it's completely unfair that Brantley compared her Blanche to Lucy Ball because of the audience laughter. She is playing it straight, it's not her fault that the audience seemed to think the show was a comedy. The laughter was a bit ridiculous throughout, but thankfully they didn't laugh at Blanche's final line. Some of the laughing certainly took me out of the moment though.

Anyway, I really think Parker deserved a Tony nomination. It's very underrated performance. Anyone agree?

Updated On: 5/17/12 at 01:39 AM

I thought so too.

I saw this version before I saw the movie, and discussed the character of Blanche with some of my colleagues who were only familiar with the movie, and I was the only one who didn't think that Blanche wasn't crazy. Then I saw the movie and now I can see why they didn't agree with me.

Her Blanche is so unique. The way she plays her makes you wonder if she's crazy and fooling us as well, or if she's consciously lying to herself and everyone out of embarrassment and if that's the case then I feel like Stanley set her up. The way she looks at Stanley before she does that wonderful exit at the end also made me think again about his role in this and her awareness. She really made me think about her performance and want to engage in conversation after which sadly hasn't happened in a while.

the whole show is so underrated.
The play is amazing as always and everyone in the cast delivers in their own way.
It is the perfect production? Maybe not.
But totally worth seeing.

The audience laughed at the original production with Tandy and Brando.

It freaked everyone out. You can hear it discussed by other actors on the Broadway: The Golden Age DVD. It's also discussed on the extras for the Streetcar movie DVD.

---

I meant it freaked the actors out, since they were the ones describing it.

Brando was particularly devastated by the laughter.

I have no idea why the audience laughed. It's a complex reaction. Disbelief. Nervous laughter. And just plain not getting it, as you say.

---

That line shouldn't get a laugh ... unless he delivers it badly. If he tosses it off, even angrily, it will get a laugh. He needs to have an intent to kill when he says it. Then it should have better results.

Unless the audience is just stupid.

---

I love Parker in this revival and also think she got a raw deal in regards to the Tonys, but I do think she is playing the role for more laughs than it usually is.

Compare the way Parker handles all the drinking Blanche does with the way Blanchett did it at BAM. Blanchett was deathly serious- her Blanche was a raging alcoholic who was desperate for another drink. It was depressing and deadly serious. Parker is having fun with the drinking, and I think it works better. Streetcar is equally funny in parts as it is devastating in others. I think part of the reason people are laughing in this revival at the more serious parts is they have been having so much fun in the first half of the play that the shift takes them off guard. Parker is SO good at the comedy and her Blanche not of the crazy variety, so it's understandable that people not familiar with the play are honestly taken by surprise by the turns it takes.

---

I definitely agree. I loved her take on Blanche. I think she deserved a nomination over Cynthia Nixon for sure.

Wow. I'd think Jackson would make an incredible Martha. But I guess the presentation of the piece is vital to its success. And it seems Albee, strangely enough, just wasn't the right person to direct the show correctly. Maybe he was just too close to the play to know how to direct it properly. Sorry, that sounds unbelievably presumptuous of me to say that he wouldn't know how to direct his own play (and I'm not trying to come across that way), but some authors just can't direct.

It's tough when you create something like a song, a musical work, a play, or a book (or anything else for that matter). You have an experience that no one else who ever sees or hears the work will have ... because you created it.

But you, in turn, have no idea how other people see it. At best, you can try to be objective and pretend to stand in their shoes ... but you know exactly where every creative decision came from, whether based on reality, a personal experience, or imagination. So your intentions can be different from an audience's perception ... or even an actor or director's perception.

Albee wrote a good play. Alan Schneider and Mike Nichols made it into a great play and classic material. It may not have been the author's intent ... just like William Inge wanted a different ending for Picnic (discussed in another thread) ... but ultimately what worked best won out.

It's important to remember that theatre is a collaborative art form. Sondheim always talks about that. His intentions for Sweeney Todd on stage were very different from Hal Prince's, but the two together created a masterpiece.

As much as I admire Sondheim and other writers and authors .... and as much as I respect that theatre is considered a writer's medium (where film is a director's medium) ... none of them did it alone. Far from it.

---

I agree that she added a lot of the humor to the drinking, and it worked. But it's pretty disheartening when the audience is laughing and howling throughout the majority of act 2.